It's a mad mad mad mad world - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by RolandL 

 

 

I have screen shots of the DVD and the MGMHD broadcast on my web site - http://www.cineramahistory.com/iammmmwhddvd.htm . They do not look like they came from the same master.

 

The fact that they cropped the DVD version from the master doesn't mean anything.  The main differences you are showing are just contrast, brightness, saturation, etc.  Not only is it the same master, the master wasn't transferred from any 70mm (65mm) elements.

Nevertheless, it would STILL make a nice Blu-ray (but I would crop it to a 2.40 AR or supply both on the Blu-ray), but there doesn't seem to be anyone at the switch at MGM (or the current entity that calls itself MGM), so I wouldn't hold my breadth waiting for them to release the Blu-ray.

 

 And on what basis are you making this claim?  The width is coming from UP70.  The standard 35mm version was coming from a cropped 35mm Panavision source.  It was cropped from making the 35mm reduction prints, not from cropping the DVD from the original source.   By your own admission, the film should be cropped to 2.4 for a new BD, but that could onlky happen if they were transferring from the original SP 70 source.

Certainly appears to be the new master.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinfesty 

 

 And on what basis are you making this claim?  The width is coming from UP70.  The standard 35mm version was coming from a cropped 35mm Panavision source.  It was cropped from making the 35mm reduction prints, not from cropping the DVD from the original source.   By your own admission, the film should be cropped to 2.4 for a new BD, but that could onlky happen if they were transferring from the original SP 70 source.

There are a lot of different thing being said here so let's take them one at a time.  I certainly admit that the AR of the so called "new" master is 2.76, which would be correct for Ultra Panavision.  However, that has nothing to do with my wanting to see a 2.40 crop.  That's just my personal opinion because 2.76 looks like hell to most people and if it was good enough for the theatrical prints, it's okay with me.

All I know is that what was shown on MGM-HD was from the same master that they used for the Laser Disc of IAMMMMW (also 2.76), and then used for the 2001 DVD release.  I had contact with the digital lab that did the transfer back at that time.  In addition, I can't believe it's possible to get the colors wrong the same way TWICE, nearly 10 years apart.  If anyone can demonstrate that it's different, I'm open to listen.  I wish I was wrong.  I haven't had a chance to check my 16mm print (which I know they crop the height when they go to 16mm) because it looks to me that they cropped some height on this "new" 2.76 master.  I want to see how it compares to the height of the 16mm print, which should show MUCH more being cropped in height (even from 35mm).
 

 Oddly, the examples (screen grabs) shown in Roland's example showed both MORE height and width from the MGM cast then from what has been seen in other transfers.  So if this wasn't a transfer from the 65/70mm UP elements, where did all this extra image come from?  As someone who has seen this film projected in UP70 (including, unfortunately, the lens refractions and negative splices at both the top and bottom of the frame, so I know it was there), the new transfer clearly shows that it was from the large film size of the original.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinfesty 

 

 Oddly, the examples (screen grabs) shown in Roland's example showed both MORE height and width from the MGM cast then from what has been seen in other transfers.  So if this wasn't a transfer from the 65/70mm UP elements, where did all this extra image come from?  As someone who has seen this film projected in UP70 (including, unfortunately, the lens refractions and negative splices at both the top and bottom of the frame, so I know it was there), the new transfer clearly shows that it was from the large film size of the original.

I'm currently trying to look into the source of what was run on MGM-HD.  Whatever transfer it's from, the quality doesn't appear good enough to be from a 65mm negative.  Unless it's a big secret, where would a "new" 70mm positive print have come from?  Since 70mm prints are on Eastman film stock, unlike the 35mm Technicolor IB prints,  unless they've made NEW 70mm prints, any old 70mm prints would be redder than Rudolph's nose at this point.  Too bad you would have to go to China to have an IB print made today, if they even have good matrices to use.

Where you say "the lens refractions and negative splices at both the top and bottom of the frame, so I know it was there), the new transfer clearly shows that it was from the large film size of the original."  Why do you believe negative flashes mean it came from the "original" format ( UP70)?  It's just as likely that when making 35mm prints and wanting to get the full height they went too high.  In any event, whether it's this film or others, some of these transfer facilities seem to believe they can do ANYTHING they want when it comes to cropping.  For instance, I was watching an HD transfer of Thunderball and these idiots felt it was necessary to letterbox the titles on a scope print.  WHY?  They would have been cutting off any names if they did it like the rest of the picture (2.35).  Walt Disney, despite doing the film 1.33, also finds it necessary to zoom out, leaving a 1.33 box WITHIN the 1.33 full frame.

Actually, I would hope they did have current 70mm prints with good color, but I doubt it.  Also, since all the UP70 prints were roadshow prints, if it was a 70mm print, it "should" be a "complete" roadshow print....show why would it cost another million dollars to restore?  They certainly didn't run 70mm theatrical release prints. 

Whatever is going on, why don't they just put the best of WHATEVER they have on Blu-ray already? 

Because a bad release is WORSE than no release.  It makes the progress on getting it done right set back so far.  What percentage of people would rebuy the super spectacular version if they had a 'good enough, mostly' one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Posten 

Because a bad release is WORSE than no release.  It makes the progress on getting it done right set back so far.  What percentage of people would rebuy the super spectacular version if they had a 'good enough, mostly' one?

"Some" people seem to feel that the MGM-HD version is "super spectacular ", however, I'm not in that group. 
If the MGM-HD version really was from a 65mm negative or 70mm positive, then it isn't going to get any better.  Anyway if it's a 65mm negative, it should be a roadshow version (I don't think they would have cut the 65mm negative for the 35mm theatrical prints).  Besides, the 35mm prints were made from Technicolor IB matrices.

I would have thought that years back when Stanley Kramer was suing United Artists and all the material were supposedly returned to him that he would have had the "complete version" negatives.....or at least a complete print, but, apparently not.  They should NEVER have relaxed the requirement for the "best version" to be deposited with the Library of Congress, at least there would have been something to work with.
 

Perhaps a real sin is that in the years of the National Film Registry, "Mad World", a film of such historic and comedic importance, is still not listed as a film worth preserving. Amazing.

Meanwhile, I think we got a few words wrong, but I am convinced that we have the correct music (from the score album)

http://www.scrabo.com/santarosita2.html

I never saw the film in its Cinerama run, so the print I saw last August at the Dome was the best I've ever seen. As much as I respect 3 strip Cinerama (and HTWWW is one of my favorite films), I've always been grateful that "Mad World" was not shot in that format.
 When we got the orignal trims in 1990, it was imperative to contact Stanley Kramer about them (the first aquisitioners never did) because he was still alive at the time, and at least he could see them, likewise Tania Rose. We knew that once this info and footage got out, it would spur more interest in the film and its legacy.

Comedy is a different film animal. I'm in the minority that feel the infamous Tracy/Keaton sequence was cut for a reason. It's not a great sequence, hardly historic in that they are not in the same shot together, and it hurts the film. In the existing version, the audience is allowed to ponder and work. We don't really know what Culpeper is going to do. But originally it's spelled out halfway through, and the Captain just becomes one of the many folks after the loot.

 I have not seen the HD version. Is the color in the credits corrected? For the old laser version, we pulled an imperfect 70mm version for that section because at least the colors were correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercyflight 

Perhaps a real sin is that in the years of the National Film Registry, "Mad World", a film of such historic and comedic importance, is still not listed as a film worth preserving. Amazing.

Meanwhile, I think we got a few words wrong, but I am convinced that we have the correct music (from the score album)

 

http://www.scrabo.com/santarosita2.html

 

 

I never saw the film in its Cinerama run, so the print I saw last August at the Dome was the best I've ever seen. As much as I respect 3 strip Cinerama (and HTWWW is one of my favorite films), I've always been grateful that "Mad World" was not shot in that format.
 When we got the orignal trims in 1990, it was imperative to contact Stanley Kramer about them (the first aquisitioners never did) because he was still alive at the time, and at least he could see them, likewise Tania Rose. We knew that once this info and footage got out, it would spur more interest in the film and its legacy.

Comedy is a different film animal. I'm in the minority that feel the infamous Tracy/Keaton sequence was cut for a reason. It's not a great sequence, hardly historic in that they are not in the same shot together, and it hurts the film. In the existing version, the audience is allowed to ponder and work. We don't really know what Culpeper is going to do. But originally it's spelled out halfway through, and the Captain just becomes one of the many folks after the loot.

 I have not seen the HD version. Is the color in the credits corrected? For the old laser version, we pulled an imperfect 70mm version for that section because at least the colors were correct.

NO!  They STILL didn't get the title credit, intermission snipe and end screen colors correct.  Strangely enough though, they DID improve the color on a few of the title credits.  For instance, where it says filmed in Ultra Panavision, they got the purplish/magenta  color much better and now appears to be correct.  It's at the very beginning that it looks like some kind of lime green that's totally wrong.

On some of the Laser disc additional sequences, I was sort of glad they never made it into the final version, because to me, it gave some sequences a "darker mood"....which I thought peculiar since this is the BEST COMEDY ever made and with the biggest cast of comedians ever assembled.

BTW- 20 years (1990) was a long time ago, I wonder how those 70mm versions might look today?
 

 Because I saw the lens refractions and negative splices projected on the screen from a new UP70 print (well, new in 2003). The Cinerama Dome had some VERY weird masking with an ujpwatd curve at the bolttom, but this allowed the entire image to be projected, instead of being cropped.  Besides, a 35mm print wouldn't exhibit the lens refractions, that information would be cropped out of the reduction printing for 35mm.

A number of movies had the 65mm negative cut for 35mm...however, in the case of IAMMMMW, the film was cut after about a month and a half of its world premiere to the same length as the eventual 35mm version (while retaining overture, entracte, exit music).  Most people who saw it during the roadshow saw the cut version.

Not sure where you're going with the 35mm dye-transfer prints.  The video transfers used today surely wouldn't have been one of those old theatrical prints. 

When I finally saw the film in a 70mm version a few times at the Dome (2003 & 2009), it was the best looking version I've ever seen. And man, you get spoiled. Distortion or not, I loved the curved screen. If the Ziegfeld in NYC had a curved screen, I'd try to sponsor a showing there. Mad World hasn't been shown in 70mm in NYC since it's Cinerama run.

Should we go for it...?

I'm in for 4 tickets Mr. Scrabo!

I'm in, and I'll bring a few newbies.  And oldies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinfesty 

 

 Because I saw the lens refractions and negative splices projected on the screen from a new UP70 print (well, new in 2003). The Cinerama Dome had some VERY weird masking with an upward curve at the bottom, but this allowed the entire image to be projected, instead of being cropped.  Besides, a 35mm print would't exhibit the lens refractions, that information would be cropped out of the reduction printing for 35mm.

 

 

When you say "lens refractions" are you referring to the optical distortion they introduce into the print to compensate for the curved screen horizon and keystone?  If so, and if you're referring to the print that was run at the Dome, I did't see that print. However, what does that have to do with the version that MGM-HD ran?  That has no distortion or negative flashes. 

When people refer to the "original" print that was cut shortly after the premiere, I'm not sure whether I ever saw that or not.  Besides the Warner Cinerama in NY, IAMMMMW was also premiered here on the east cost at Skouras' Syosset Theatre and it had the police transmissions during the intermission, however that was run manually by the projectionist APART from the film, so I don't count that in the running time.  Although my memory is bad and I might be getting a little senile, I believe I recall the running time at the Syosset was 194 minutes.  I know that my 16mm print only runs 154 or 156 minutes, not sure.

The only reason I mentioned the Technicolor IB prints is because they certainly didn't take original 65mm negative to cut on to make 35mm theatrical version prints. Back then they would always use some type of protection intermediate, like an inter-negative or or fine grain master positive, etc. and then cut on that.  However, where Technicolor was involved and because of the system they used, they would have to have made some type of intermediate to make the matrices from since 35mm IB system isn't a photographic process strictly speaking (although the double processing of the B&W silver image soundtrack is photographic).  Back then when they made large numbers of 35mm release prints, the Technicolor process was cheaper once the matrices were made.  Today, they don't make enough prints to make such an initially expensive process pay.

Do you know the source of the 70mm print they ran at the Dome?  If so, do you know if it was made from a separation master, or did they already have an (ultra) HD digital master that they used to transfer back to film?
 

At the tender age of 13 or thereabouts, I was taken by my parents to the roadshow engagement in Miami Beach, and something I always recalled over the years was seeing Spencer Tracy eating the ice cream.  For some reason that moment struck me enough that I noticed its absence in subsequent viewings...and I'm mighty glad it did, for what it's worth.

Is that one of the scenes cut very early in the roadshow run (which would indicate that we didn't waste much time getting out to see this one), or did it hang in there for a while?

 No, that would be referred to as a rectified print.  The print the Dome showed was unrectified and was a brand new 70mm print struck off of the cut UP70 (65mm) negative (allegedly, claimed, etc).  It was projected with a UP70 lens on loan from Panavision.  Several other 70mm equipped theatres has shown this print along with the lens (or pair of lenses, if doing changeover).  There were NO changeover cues on this particular print, although they may have been added when changeover houses played it.  Of COURSE nagative flashed and refractions (the very slight part of the top and bottom of each frame) wouldn't be seen on MGMHD.  Any competent operator would be doing a slight crop to eliminate these, essentially the digital equivalent of the apeture plate.  For whatever reason, the Dome was intent on NOT doing the apeture plate cropping on this particular presentation, revealing the entire frame including the negative flashes.  The theatre created special screen masking that started at the bottom of the screen and reached upward toward the edges to prevent from having to use their normal butterfly shaped plates.  Although they have never seemed to have a problem doing this before or after.

Now, the reason I mentioned the negative splices as a way of explaining that I was pretty much seeing the enitre frame of the 70mm UP 70 image and that gave me a reference point to notice how much more image I was seeing than in any 35mm Panavision print I ever saw.  And it resembles the image shown on the MGMHD presentation.  Therefore, it had to have come from a 70mm source, not a 35mm one, whuich would have had far less imagry to work from.

BTW, this particular print had the police calls built into the print.  They were on a 20 minute black slug of 70mm film.  There were three of them and each one was repeated twice.  The DOME was running them into the restrooms during the intermission as well as the lobby (and of course, the house).  The print also had the overture, intermission, entracte and exit music.  But the actual body of the film was the general release (as well as most of the roadshow run) cut.  The Cinerama Dome was obviously one of those theatres that ended up with a cut version.  After a couple of months (if you checked the LA Times ads) the film started doing FOUR reserved seat showings on Saturdays, with 3 hr 15 min spreads between showings.  Not sure how that could have been accomplished on a non-continuous schedule with intermission, clearance, seating, etc.

Just a reminder that MGM HD airs 14 Mbit MPEG2 with only DD2.0 and that in effect leads to some filtering in one way or another of film grain and in the process probably also ultrafine detail. So it is hard to say how good the master looks that was used for the airing - it could look not much better than what was aired but it could also look spectacular. The same goes for Khartoum by the way, although I was told that Khartoum really was only scanned at 2k except for the title sequences!

For those who already thought that this was very good or spectacular I suggest to set expectations higher - they surely could be met with a proper Blu-Ray of IAMMMMW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinfesty 

 

 No, that would be referred to as a rectified print.  The print the Dome showed was unrectified and was a brand new 70mm print struck off of the cut UP70 (65mm) negative (allegedly, claimed, etc).  It was projected with a UP70 lens on loan from Panavision.  Several other 70mm equipped theatres has shown this print along with the lens (or pair of lenses, if doing changeover).  There were NO changeover cues on this particular print, although they may have been added when changeover houses played it.  Of COURSE nagative flashed and refractions (the very slight part of the top and bottom of each frame) wouldn't be seen on MGMHD.  Any competent operator would be doing a slight crop to eliminate these, essentially the digital equivalent of the apeture plate.  For whatever reason, the Dome was intent on NOT doing the apeture plate cropping on this particular presentation, revealing the entire frame including the negative flashes.  The theatre created special screen masking that started at the bottom of the screen and reached upward toward the edges to prevent from having to use their normal butterfly shaped plates.  Although they have never seemed to have a problem doing this before or after.

 

Now, the reason I mentioned the negative splices as a way of explaining that I was pretty much seeing the enitre frame of the 70mm UP 70 image and that gave me a reference point to notice how much more image I was seeing than in any 35mm Panavision print I ever saw.  And it resembles the image shown on the MGMHD presentation.  Therefore, it had to have come from a 70mm source, not a 35mm one, whuich would have had far less imagry to work from.

 

BTW, this particular print had the police calls built into the print.  They were on a 20 minute black slug of 70mm film.  There were three of them and each one was repeated twice.  The DOME was running them into the restrooms during the intermission as well as the lobby (and of course, the house).  The print also had the overture, intermission, entracte and exit music.  But the actual body of the film was the general release (as well as most of the roadshow run) cut.  The Cinerama Dome was obviously one of those theatres that ended up with a cut version.  After a couple of months (if you checked the LA Times ads) the film started doing FOUR reserved seat showings on Saturdays, with 3 hr 15 min spreads between showings.  Not sure how that could have been accomplished on a non-continuous schedule with intermission, clearance, seating, etc.

 

 

More confused than ever.........

So the print run at the Dome was NOT even a complete roadshow print (which I define as what was run after the initial cutting after the premiere)?  Is the print that was run at the Dome "identical" in content to what was run on MGM-HD?  While the MGM-HD version looks very nice, it just doesn't look like it came directly from 65mm elements.  Nobody seems to know the source of the 70mm print that was run at the Dome.  I know you assume it came from a 65mm negative, however, I ran Star Wars years ago in 70mm and it looked "good".  However, it was made from a 35mm liquid gate blow-up, like many other pictures that have been run in 70mm.   

I found it interesting what Charles Smith says about Spencer Tracey eating the ice cream, which I also remember.  When Guess Who's Coming To Dinner premiered in NY at the Victoria Theatre (the Astor & Victoria were real dumps), I was the projectionist.  At that time I met Stanley Kramer (and Katharine Houghton) before the picture and again after when he came up to the booth.  I remember joking that in all his pictures he had Spencer Tracy was always eating ice cream.  Now I know that scene isn't in the MGM-HD version.  He only makes reference to wanting an ice cream sunday with whip cream and a cherry.  So what version was that in, original version, roadshow version?

My final question is this; Did the Dome print have the correct colors for the titles, intermission and end?  If they WERE correct and the MGM-HD version came from the same source, why would the colors still be wrong on the MGM-HD version?

How can a restoration take place if it's not clear what the "original" is. Is there any agreement as to what the original is?  Personally, with a couple of small exceptions, I happen to like the picture the way it is.  I certainly didn't like the additions that were added into the Laser disc version, but then again, that's why Mr. Kramer didn't use them.  It's really unfortunate that Mr. Kramer isn't here to answer these questions.

Edit-7/31- I must be getting more senile than I thought.  My wife pointed out that it was the "Forum" ( Bwdy & 47th ST) that I was working in when Guess Who's Coming To Dinner premiered.  But the Astor & Victoria were STILL dumps.-lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by OliverK 

Just a reminder that MGM HD airs 14 Mbit MPEG2 with only DD2.0 and that in effect leads to some filtering in one way or another of film grain and in the process probably also ultrafine detail. So it is hard to say how good the master looks that was used for the airing - it could look not much better than what was aired but it could also look spectacular. The same goes for Khartoum by the way, although I was told that Khartoum really was only scanned at 2k except for the title sequences!

 

For those who already thought that this was very good or spectacular I suggest to set expectations higher - they surely could be met with a proper Blu-Ray of IAMMMMW.

That's a good point.  They are only doing 2K scans for DCI theatres with no talk of anything higher, despite theatres putting in 4K  projectors for 3D.

Since it appears that the print run at the Dome has nothing more than the MGM-HD version and it doesn't seem like they're going ahead with any further restoration in the near future, why don't they at least put out a Blu-ray of the best version they have?

 

 No, i'm assuming it, I was told it.  John Sittig said during the booth tour of How the West Was Won that the print they would be showing in a few weeks of IAMMMMW was a new 70mm print struck off the ON.  It was an outstanding picture, exept for the titles, which were in bad shape (just like what was shown on MGMHD).  Sittig has also stated in other blogs that IAMMMMW prints playing in both Los Angeles and NYC were physically cut by editors from UA making booth visits a few weeks after the premiere in which more than 30 minujtes were cut.  They then proceeded to cut the 65mm negative to match these print cuts for subsequent printing.  I'm not sure where your confusion lies.

BTW, the soundtrack was DTS special venue format (5 screen channels, 1 surround) and the onlhy change they made was to boost the level to the surrounds, claiming that today's audiences liked louder surrounds. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinfesty 

 

 No, i'm assuming it, I was told it.  John Sittig said during the booth tour of How the West Was Won that the print they would be showing in a few weeks of IAMMMMW was a new 70mm print struck off the ON.  It was an outstanding picture, exept for the titles, which were in bad shape (just like what was shown on MGMHD).  Sittig has also stated in other blogs that IAMMMMW prints playing in both Los Angeles and NYC were physically cut by editors from UA making booth visits a few weeks after the premiere in which more than 30 minujtes were cut.  They then proceeded to cut the 65mm negative to match these print cuts for subsequent printing.  I'm not sure where your confusion lies.

 

BTW, the soundtrack was DTS special venue format (5 screen channels, 1 surround) and the onlhy change they made was to boost the level to the surrounds, claiming that today's audiences liked louder surrounds. 

I'm not certain that I believe the "booth visit" concept, as the prints would have had to be degaussed and re-recorded.  Some reels were heavily re-cut.
 

 Quote:

Originally Posted by plinfesty 

 

 No, i'm assuming it, I was told it.  John Sittig said during the booth tour of How the West Was Won that the print they would be showing in a few weeks of IAMMMMW was a new 70mm print struck off the ON.  It was an outstanding picture, exept for the titles, which were in bad shape (just like what was shown on MGMHD).  Sittig has also stated in other blogs that IAMMMMW prints playing in both Los Angeles and NYC were physically cut by editors from UA making booth visits a few weeks after the premiere in which more than 30 minujtes were cut.  They then proceeded to cut the 65mm negative to match these print cuts for subsequent printing.  I'm not sure where your confusion lies.

 

BTW, the soundtrack was DTS special venue format (5 screen channels, 1 surround) and the onlhy change they made was to boost the level to the surrounds, claiming that today's audiences liked louder surrounds. 

I find the claim of cutting the 70mm prints in the booths and then cutting the 65mm negative to conform, incredible.  Since they wouldn't have made subsequent prints from the 65mm negative.  They would have had an internegatives or master positives to cut on FIRST.

It seems to get more confusing the deeper I look into it, so I guess the answer will never be known before I die, if ever.  However, speaking with someone who was involved with Fox's "restoration" of the Cinemascope 55 musicals (The King and I & Carousel), when they did the liquid gate transfer, they had to change the aspect ratio slightly.  The same type process could have been used on this "mystery" print of IAMMMMW, causing the negative flashes you say were visible in the final print.   

Whatever the answer is to this whole mystery, I still say that the way ALL these classic films have been handled over the years borders on criminal.  As for color accuracy, the only prints that are a reliable reference are the Technicolor IB prints.  Wherever they got the titles from that they used for the MGM-HD version of IAMMMMW, you can be certain it didn't come from a 65mm negative (which appears to have had a lot of damage on the left side).  It's also clear that they had NO reference for some of the colors on those titles.  As for the rest of the picture, as long as the skintones look reasonable, it's nearly impossible to know whether it's correct or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Techman707 

 Quote:

I find the claim of cutting the 70mm prints in the booths and then cutting the 65mm negative to conform, incredible.  Since they wouldn't have made subsequent prints from the 65mm negative.  They would have had an internegatives or master positives to cut on FIRST.

 

It seems to get more confusing the deeper I look into it, so I guess the answer will never be known before I die, if ever.  However, speaking with someone who was involved with Fox's "restoration" of the Cinemascope 55 musicals (The King and I & Carousel), when they did the liquid gate transfer, they had to change the aspect ratio slightly.  The same type process could have been used on this "mystery" print of IAMMMMW, causing the negative flashes you say were visible in the final print.   

 

Whatever the answer is to this whole mystery, I still say that the way ALL these classic films have been handled over the years borders on criminal.  As for color accuracy, the only prints that are a reliable reference are the Technicolor IB prints.  Wherever they got the titles from that they used for the MGM-HD version of IAMMMMW, you can be certain it didn't come from a 65mm negative (which appears to have had a lot of damage on the left side).  It's also clear that they had NO reference for some of the colors on those titles.  As for the rest of the picture, as long as the skintones look reasonable, it's nearly impossible to know whether it's correct or not.

Actually, determining correct color and densities on this film is quite easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

Quote:

Actually, determining correct color and densities on this film is quite easy.

LOL- Somebody should tell that to whoever did the titles on the MGM-HD version IAMMMMW. 

Maybe you'll get to correct them someday.

 Why do you find this print such a mystery?  It was a newly struck 70mm print.  It was a UP70 (not rectified, but anamorphic 1.25 squeeze) print.  There is NO mystery as to why the negative splices were showing.  As I stated earlier, the Dome was NOT using their normal butterfly plates to project the film.  THey were using a different set of lenses than normal to get all of the UP70 image on the screen.  They were using NO cropping of the film image in then booth, but used strangely shaped screen masking  to do the job (and the top masking wasn't lowered enough to hit the top part of the image).  The negative flashes were being projected because the theatre was not using the standard crop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinfesty 

 

 Why do you find this print such a mystery?  It was a newly struck 70mm print.  It was a UP70 (not rectified, but anamorphic 1.25 squeeze) print.  There is NO mystery as to why the negative splices were showing.  As I stated earlier, the Dome was NOT using their normal butterfly plates to project the film.  THey were using a different set of lenses than normal to get all of the UP70 image on the screen.  They were using NO cropping of the film image in then booth, but used strangely shaped screen masking  to do the job (and the top masking wasn't lowered enough to hit the top part of the image).  The negative flashes were being projected because the theatre was not using the standard crop.

I find it a mystery because all your statements are unsubstantiated.  You say it was a "newly struck 70mm print", but, you don't really know the source.  When you say there was no cropping, since you don't really know the source, you can't say what they did or how they did it.  The fact that it has a 1.25 squeeze means nothing.  They can do that to ANY print.  They could easily take an old 35mm Cinemascope print that was 2.55 and with a little cropping, reprint it liquid gate in 70mm with a 1.25 squeeze. If you were unfamiliar with the picture and it was run as UP70, what would you say then?  Because you say you saw it, I accept the fact that it was a "new 70mm print" that was run UP70, that tells me nothing of the source for that print.  

The reason I mentioned Fox's Cinemascope 55 transfers of The King and I and Carousel is because they had to crop those pictures when they did the liquid gate transfer.  Although I saw prototype 55mm Simplex XL and E7 heads at Deluxe, NY, years ago, because they were not viable in the theatres, they wound up exhibiting them in 70mm (they actually called it Grandeur 70mm at the time).  Those prints were CROPPED, but if someone didn't tell you that, you would NEVER know it.

So until the source is known and HOW IT WAS MADE, to me, it will remain a mystery. 
 

 AFAIK, only THE KING AND I was released in what was called Grandeur 70, not CAROUSEL, and it wasn't the original release that this was performed for, but for one in 1960-61.

But of course this has nothing to do with IAMMMMW and the print that many people saw at both the Dome, in 2003 and just this past year, as well as showings at the Egyoptian and Aero.  It doesn't change the fact that the print, as well as what MGMHD showed, featured far more information than the standard 35mm "scope" release version. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinfesty 

 

 AFAIK, only THE KING AND I was released in what was called Grandeur 70, not CAROUSEL, and it wasn't the original release that this was performed for, but for one in 1960-61.

 

But of course this has nothing to do with IAMMMMW and the print that many people saw at both the Dome, in 2003 and just this past year, as well as showings at the Egyoptian and Aero.  It doesn't change the fact that the print, as well as what MGMHD showed, featured far more information than the standard 35mm "scope" release version. 

So maybe I misunderstood what I was told.  However, the point is, you don't have A CLUE what the source of that so called "new" print that was run at the Dome, Egyptian, Aero or what have you.  Your statement that the MGM-HD print "featured far more information than the standard 35mm "scope" release version" remains to be seen.  When you can say how, where and what the print was made from, please let me know.  Until then, there is really nothing to argue about.
 

 Maybe to you, but I DID see it, as have others here, and the MGMHD print showed far more info on the sides and a little bit more on the top and bottom than the 35mm release prints.  Apparently, its something you'll have to see and experience for yourself.